On 28 February 2013 11:08, Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > From: Namhyung Kim <namhyung.kim@xxxxxxx> > > The relation should be CPUFREQ_RELATION_L to find optimal frequency > when decreasing. > > Cc: Viresh Kumar <viresh.kumar@xxxxxxxxxx> > Signed-off-by: Namhyung Kim <namhyung@xxxxxxxxxx> > --- > drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c | 2 +- > 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) > > diff --git a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > index dd2fd9094819..0d582811d66c 100644 > --- a/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > +++ b/drivers/cpufreq/cpufreq_conservative.c > @@ -106,7 +106,7 @@ static void cs_check_cpu(int cpu, unsigned int load) > dbs_info->requested_freq = policy->min; > > __cpufreq_driver_target(policy, dbs_info->requested_freq, > - CPUFREQ_RELATION_H); > + CPUFREQ_RELATION_L); Other two patches are fine but really not sure about this one. When decreasing freq, what do we want: - lowest frequency at or above target, i.e. >= requested_freq - highest frequency below or at target, i.e. <= requested_freq I thought second option was better and so CPUFREQ_RELATION_H suits more. What made you do this change? -- To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe cpufreq" in the body of a message to majordomo@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx More majordomo info at http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
